US grants presidential permit for Puerto Rico–Dominican Republic submarine power cable. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting evaluative or comparative statements as fact without providing supporting evidence or clear basis.

“...marking a major step forward for one of the most ambitious energy projects in the Caribbean.” This characterizes the project as “one of the most ambitious” and the permit as a “major step forward” without offering comparative data (e.g., scale vs. other projects, regional benchmarks, or expert assessments) to substantiate these claims.

3 suggestions

Qualify the language and attribute it clearly: “...which project backers describe as one of the more ambitious recent energy projects in the Caribbean.”

Provide supporting context or data: “...marking a major step forward for a US$2.5-billion energy project that, according to CTDC, would be among the largest cross-border power initiatives in the Caribbean by capacity (700 MW).”

Use neutral wording if evidence is not available: “...marking an important procedural step for a large-scale energy project in the Caribbean.”

Omission of key information / Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s benefits or perspective while omitting foreseeable concerns, trade-offs, or alternative viewpoints that are relevant for a balanced understanding.

The article focuses on approvals, technical details, and potential benefits: - “The project would allow the transmission of up to 700 megawatts of electricity in both directions, strengthening energy security in both territories.” - “Initially, the project is expected to supply part of Puerto Rico’s energy demand, but in the long term, it could also facilitate the export of surplus solar energy from Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic.” However, it does not mention any potential environmental concerns (e.g., marine impacts of a submarine cable, new natural gas plant emissions), financial risks (e.g., cost to ratepayers, risk of cost overruns), regulatory or political opposition, or alternative strategies (e.g., more local renewables without new fossil infrastructure). This creates a one-sided, pro-project framing even though the tone remains factual.

4 suggestions

Add a brief section on potential concerns: “Environmental groups have previously raised concerns about the impact of submarine cables and new fossil fuel plants on marine ecosystems and emissions, though no formal opposition to this specific project has yet been reported.”

Include information on cost and who bears it: “Details on how the estimated US$2.5 billion cost would be recovered from consumers or taxpayers have not yet been made public.”

Note the absence of other perspectives explicitly: “No major public opposition or detailed independent assessments of the project’s environmental and economic impacts were available at the time of publication.”

If available, quote or summarize critical or cautious views from regulators, experts, or civil society to balance the overwhelmingly pro-project information.

Framing effect / Mild positive framing

Using wording that subtly frames the project in a positive light, influencing perception without overt argument or evidence.

Phrases such as: - “marking a major step forward” - “strengthening energy security in both territories” - “could also facilitate the export of surplus solar energy” These are plausible outcomes but are presented as straightforward positives without acknowledging uncertainties, conditions, or possible trade-offs (e.g., dependence on natural gas, long timelines, regulatory risks).

3 suggestions

Add conditional language to reflect uncertainty: “The project is expected to strengthen energy security in both territories, according to its developers, if it is completed on schedule and operates as planned.”

Clarify that some benefits are projections: “CTDC says the project could, in the long term, facilitate the export of surplus solar energy from Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic.”

Balance positive framing with neutral or cautionary context: “While supporters say the cable would strengthen energy security, analysts note that the project’s benefits will depend on future fuel prices, regulatory decisions, and the pace of renewable energy deployment in both territories.”